Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Send article to Kindle
To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account.
Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.
To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account.
Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.
page 391 note 1See generallyMeron, T., The United Nations Secretariat60–66 (1977).
page 391 note 2Id. at 159–71.
page 391 note 3 Article 100 states, in part, that the Secretary-General shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the United Nations, and that each member state shall respect the exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the Secretary-General.
page 391 note 4 Article 101 (3) provides, in part, that the paramount consideration in the employment of the staff shall be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity.
page 391 note 5See generallyMeron, , In re Rosescu and the Independence of the International Civil Service,75 AJIL 910 (1981); Estabial v. Secretary-General of the United Nations, UN Doc. AT/DEC/310(1983).
page 391 note 6 Yakimetz v. Secretary-General of the United Nations, UN Doc. AT/DEC/333 (1984), was an appeal against the nonextension of the appointment of a staff member from the Soviet Union after his application for asylum in the United States. On Aug. 28, 1984, the Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgments decided that there was substantial basis for the application for review. The International Court of Justice has not, as yet, pronounced its advisory opinion on the Yakimetz case.
page 393 note 1Fox, D. & Glennon, M., Report to the International Human Rights Law Group and the Washington Office on Latin America Concerning Abuses Against Civilians by Counterrevolutionaries Operating in Nicaragua (1985) [hereinafter cited as Report].
page 393 note 2Moore, , The Secret War in Central America and the Future of World Order80 AJIL 43, 123 n.333 (1986) [hereinafter cited as Moore].
page 393 note 3Moore, , Reply to the letter by Larry Garber, 80 AJIL 186, 193 (1987) [hereinafter cited as Reply].
page 393 note 4Id.
page 393 note 5 Americas Watch, Violations of the Laws of War by Both Sides in Nicaragua 1981–85, at vi (March 1985).
page 393 note 6 Amnesty International, Nicaragua: The Human Rights Record 32 (March 1986).
7 Americas Watch, Human Rights in Nicaragua: 1986, at 5 (February 1987).
8Id. at 18–19.
9See Report, supra note 1, at 21.
10Id. at 20.
12 Telephone interview with Kathleen Smith, Press Officer, Amnesty International (Feb. 11, 1987).
13 Apparently intending rhetorical effect, Moore raises a variety of objections that have no bearing on the reliability of our methodology or the probity of the report’s conclusions. He complains, for example, that a public relations firm that had some relationship with the sponsoring organizations also had Maurice Bishop’s Grenada as a client. Similarly, he writes that Fox “may not even have been aware,” Reply, supra note 3, at 191 n. 16, of my meeting with Reichler and an Interior Ministry official, and that one of us—he does not specify which—“expressed doubts about the questioning of the other,” id. at 193. This comment considers only those of Moore’s remarks that have some bearing on the point he tries to establish.
14Id. at 190.
16Id. at 191.
17 Moore, supra note 2, at 123 n.335.
18 Reply, supra note 3, at 191.
19Weissbrodt, , International Trial Observers18 Stan. J. Int’l L. 27, 119 (1982).
20 Reply, supra note 3, at 191.
21See Report, supra note 1, at 2.
22 Reply, supra note 3, at 192.
24Id. at 191.
25Id. at 192, 194.
26 Moore’s reliance on this interview is most interesting. See infra text accompanying notes 61–62.
27 Moore, supra note 2, at 123 n.333.
28See Report, supra note 1, at 9.
29 Reply, supra note 3, at 192.
31Id. at 189 n.7.
32 Report, supra note 1, at 18.
34See Reply, supra note 3, at 192.
35Desbarats, & Jackson, , Vietnam 1975–1982: The Cruel PeaceWash. Q., Fall1985, at 169.
36Id. at 176.
37See Reply, supra note 3, at 192.
40 Desbarats & Jackson, supra note 35, at 176.
41See infra note 48.
42 Report, supra note 1, at 19.
43Id. at 17–18 (emphasis added).
44 Desbarats & Jackson, supra note 35.
45 This procedure, it is worth noting, comports with Professor Weissbrodt’s Proposed Draft Model Procedures for NGO Fact-Finding:
[I]t does not seem unreasonable to suggest that nongovernmental organizations should expressly state their fact–finding methodology at least in substantial reports on human rights situations. Obviously, every letter, appeal, press release, etc., could not contain such methodological statements—for reasons of economy and effectiveness. But major factual inquiries representing considerable effort and involving a substantial result, such as a report, might contain a sketch of the basic methodology used in deriving the report. Indeed, most sizeable NGO human rights reports do contain at least a paragraph or two concerning methodology used.
Weissbrodt, & McCarthy, , Fact-Finding by Nongovernmental Organizations in International Law and Fact-Finding in the Field of Human Rights 186, 216 (Ramcharan, B. ed. 1982).
Our report devoted six pages to describing the methodology used. As in the case of other proposed model rules, our report complies fully with each of Professor Weissbrodt’s 12 proposed guidelines, with one exception (paragraph 6). We did not indicate which of us conducted each interview. In fact, we probably conducted 90% of them jointly.
46 Reply, supra note 3, at 9.
47 Desbarats & Jackson, supra note 35.
48See, e.g., Weissbrodt, & McCarthy, , Fact-Finding by International Nongovernmental Human Rights Organizations22 Va. J. Int’l L. 1 (1981); Franck, & Fairley, , Procedural Due Process in Human Rights Fact-finding by International Agencies74 AJIL 308 (1980); Norris, ; Observations “in loco”: Practice and Procedures of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights15 Tex. J. Int’l L. 46 (1980); Report of the Secretary–General on Methods of Fact–finding, UN Doc. A/5694 (1964).
49Franck, , Current Developments Note, 75 AJIL 163 (1981). These were drawn up after 4 years of study by a special subcommittee of the International Law Association, which consisted of representatives from Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ghana, Kenya, the Netherlands, Singapore, the United Kingdom, the United States and Uruguay. The 59th ILA Conference, held in Belgrade on Aug. 18–23, 1980, approved the rules by consensus. Id.
50Id. at 165. Fox’s and my findings and conclusions were unanimous.
51Reprinted in Ramcharan (ed.), supra note 45, at 239.
52 These are: (1) appointment, mandate; (2) organization of work; (3) procedure adopted; (4) facts alleged; (5) comments on allegations or rebuttals; (6) evidence obtained, including sources of evidence used and evidentiary criteria followed; (7) standards relied upon; (8) discussions of issues; (9) conclusions and recommendations; and (10) annexes, such as rules of procedure or comments of governments concerned. Van Boven, The Reports of Fact-Finding Bodies, reprinted in id. at 182.
53 L. Abel, Important Nonsense (1987).
54 I should note, however, that here the Vietnam blood-bath report is consistent with Moore’s approach. It contains no indication that the authors made any effort through cross-examination to determine the veracity of any of the persons interviewed. Rather, if they related enough detail, they apparently were assumed to be telling the truth. Desbarats & Jackson, supra note 35, at 176.
55 Reply, supra note 3, at 192.
56 Weissbrodt & McCarthy, supra note 45, at 208.
57See Report, supra note 1, at 22.
58 Reply, supra note 3, at 193.
59 Report, supra note 1, at 10.
60Id. at 12.
61Id., App. III at 34.
62 Moore, supra note 2, at 66.
63 Reply, supra note 3, at 191.
65Id. at 191–92.
66Id. at 192.
67Id. at 188–89.
68Id. at 189 n.7.
69Id. at 190—which is the kind Moore wants.
70 Report, supra note 1, at 19.
71Id. at 22.
72Id. at 18.
73 Model Code of Evidence Rule 1(5) (1942).
74 Report, supra note 1, at 15.
75Id. at 22 (emphasis in original).
77Id. at 23.
79Id. at 28.
80 UN Charter art. 94, para. 1.
81 Reply, supra note 3, at 193.
Recommend this journal
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.